You Just Need to be the Right Sort of Roman

I have long maintained that a massive amount of the outrage being directed at the Church over the abuse scandal is completely phony. Not that the crimes and sins committed by abusive priests and their Episcopal defenders are phony in the slightest—but rather that many of the people who are crying “I’m shocked—shocked—at the thought of sexual abuse of children!” are, in fact, completely uninterested in the sexual abuse of children or are, indeed, supportive of the sexual abuse of children.

Case in point, child rapist and molestor Roman Polanski and his ardent defenders, including such moral giants as Woody Allen, Whoopi Goldberg (“It was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”), John Landis, Mike Nichols, Salman Rushdie, Martin Scorcese, Tilda Swinton, Diane von Furstenberg, and Debra Winger (”[The arrest] is based on an… old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities.”).

One doesn’t see the New York Times pulling out the stops to demand accountability from Polanski or to arraign his defenders as moral idiots. Why? Because Polanski is the right kind of Roman, made some good films, and is a good Lefty who lives the lifestyle of Exaltation of the Groin that is part and parcel of liberal left culture. So he gets a pass. How tres tres Euro!

Speaking of which, here’s another artifact of the same sort of thing: a piece on how German lefties in the late 60s decided it would be ever so cool to get rid of all that shame and taboo stuff surrounding sex with children. Rod Dreher, understandably but, I think mistakenly, sees this as having “paved the way” for pedophilia in the clergy. I think that’s giving rather too much credit and power to a nutty German fringe group. The problem of pedophilia in the clergy (and indeed of pedophilia throughout the human race) is one that antedates 1968. However, what the article does do is demonstrate how our cultural elites intend to approach the question in the future. Here’s the money quote:

“Does what happened in a number of the Kinderladen qualify as abuse? According to the criteria to which Catholic priests have been subjected, it clearly does, says Alexander Schuller, the sociologist. “Objectively speaking, it was abuse, but subjectively it wasn’t,” says author Dannenberg. As outlandish as it seems in retrospect, the parents apparently had the welfare of the children in mind, not their own. For the adherents to the new movement, the child did not serve as a sex object to provide the adults with a means of satisfying their sexual urges. This differentiates politically motivated abuse from pedophilia.”

What this means, as with the case of Roman Polanski, is that our Leftist arbiters of Correct Thought don’t really have all that much of a problem with sex with children, so long as it happens on their terms. If you do it with “the welfare of the children in mind” then it’s A OK. Prescinding from the fact that every pervert in the world says he does what he does for the good of his victim (“She really wanted it”/”I’m just trying to show that boy that sex is normal and healthy”), what a quote like this signifies is the radical inability of lefty media to make moral judgments. German perverts “meant well” so we are to cut them some slack. Indeed, in the post-modern world where consent is the sole criterion of the good our average lefty libertine has no means whatsoever to say that the German perverts were perverts. So we get half-baked apologies about how they “meant well” alloyed with the uneasy sense that nobody’s buying that—and that people who don’t buy it are “judgmental” for clinging to such taboos.

Only one exception is made: Pope Benedict XVI, the one guy who has actually done more than anybody else to clean up the perversions that had been practiced and protected by an institutional structure. Against him, every rumor and murky attempt at character assassination has been fair game. But even in this we see a sort of back-handed testimony to the uniqueness of the Church. For the attacks from lefty media attest to the fact that the one basis for attacking the Church is its own moral code. You can’t complain of the perverts in the Church that they fail to measure up to the rigorous standards of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen whom you lionize and excuse. You have to say that the Church’s own moral teaching is what bad priests and bishops fail to honor.

The problem, of course, is that this moral code is precisely what our lefty libertines wish to see swept away. So they wind up writing the sort of gibberish we see above to exculpate Roman Polanski and make excuses for “well-meaning” German perverts and distinguish them from priestly perverts. It makes no sense, but then sin never does. Suffice it to say that the day is coming when our Manufacturers of Culture will condemn the Church, not for permitting pedophilia, but for condemning it. Large numbers of the Church’s critics see abused children, not as abused children, but as human shields for attacking the Church. That’s why they only care about Catholic abused children and pay no attention to the reality of, for instance, abused children in public schools or, worse, make excuses for it when the culprits are German lefties.

Comments

I just responded to a local St. Louis ‘newspapoer’, thr article therein that railed against the mean old Catholic Church for firing two male employes after they announced their ‘;marriage’.

I noted in my letter to the editor the First Amendment to the US Bill of Rights that protects religious organizations in governing their organizations according to their beliefs…protected by the First Amendment to the US Bill of Rights…rights given by God which no government may remove/deny. I made mention of the HHS Mandate which denies churches their rights in the same manner. CC to my Archbishop’s newspaper in St. Louis, MO. The article railed abd railed about the firing.

I accurately defined the meaning of marriage vs. a civil union…...we will see what response comes forth. Leaving CA a few years ago and I find pockets of resistance to the Truth in the great state of Missouri!!!

The two men were fortunate they had jobs for as long as they did…....

Patricia in St. Louis, MO

Posted by Loud on Saturday, Mar 17, 2012 12:16 AM (EDT):

The problem isn’t that the media is always over-reacting in reguards to corruption and sin in the Church, it is that it is under-reacting to sin and corruption when it is found ANYWHRE ELSE! Come on… When you consider the precentage of Catholic-Church-related abuse cases with that of cases in the general public, the Church is STILL the standard bearer for virtue!

Posted by Sharon on Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011 8:48 AM (EDT):

I agree that much of the media’s outrage at sexual abuse is phoney. Here in the Northern Territory in Australia a number of children under 14, including babies, were found to have sexually transmitted diseases. I accidentally found this on the website of the Australian Broadcasting Commission [government funded], it did not appear in my news email. Only one other news outlet even mentioned the shocking news but, I guess because no Catholic priest was involved the media wasn’t interested in advocating the protection of these poor little children.

Posted by Patricia Cornell on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 11:22 PM (EDT):

I can emphasize with you teaching public school. Congratulations for staying with it. I found teaching rewarding when I taught 5-6th grade until the end of the first week of teaching. It was 1962 and the Supreme Court had just passed something forbidding no Bible reading in schools.

I left and found a niche teaching adults in the Federal Women’s Program in Ft. Lee, VA. It was fun and I learned alot.

Now I live in Missouri and I hada no contact with teaching and yet hear that public school children cannot take their health book home. Could it be that parents will see that children are taught that abortion, contraception and a variety of marriages (including with animals) is all ‘choice’. Wonder why I support home schooling? No, you don’t.

Thank you adults who teach well in public shools. In St. Louis, MO, Patricia Cornell

Posted by JB on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 9:31 PM (EDT):

Our culture - of death - as a whole (NOT specific individuals) hates children. Those on the left who bash the Catholic church by saying we don’t protect children are actually hating children themselves because they try to USE children’s causes to get to the church.

I could give example after example of how un-child-friendly our culture is. Our “Dr. Spock” parenting styles. Abortion. Child pornography. Left leaning agendas in our entertainment. And the general narcissism that is everywhere you look in secular culture. I think our kids (and sadly, most adults) are starving for loving discipline, but try telling that to overindulgent parents. It’s impossible. I am a public school teacher and even though I (thankfully) work in a fairly conservative area of the country, still I know a lesbian woman who is a teacher on my campus who probably doesn’t emphasize the same things I would if I were teaching American History. Personally, I’ve never been asked to take off my crucifix, (my ONLY testament to my faith in public school) and I hope I never am asked to take it off, because my principal would have to tear it off the neck of my cold dead body.

Posted by Patricia Cornell on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 7:53 PM (EDT):

Please notify me of follow-up comments.

Posted by Patricia Cornell on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 7:52 PM (EDT):

Mark Shea is right, again! Thank you, Mark for your clear analysis of the abuse situation. And for those who read my humble comments here, Pedophilia was not the issue in the Roman Catholic priesthood..it was homosexuality (BTW, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights gives clear and truthful answers to the unfortunate and horrible as it is, involved pre-teen boys and teen boys….rarely children and girls. The issue here is that 1. the media protects homosexuals (a down-troddened group) and 2. the media in general hates the Catholic Church or ignores its media writings.

Think public schools are not harboring sex abusers in their districts? Go to the internent and enter in a Google Search: public schools USA sex abuse of childen The Catholic Church had some bad apples and hopefully, they are all gone.

In Christ, Patricia from St. Louis, MO

Posted by Anne on Saturday, Jul 31, 2010 1:12 AM (EDT):

Mark did a good job in his article.
The abusers are dead or in jail where they belong.
Now the Pope has changed the NORMS so the Pope will be able to remove Bishops who hide abusers in the future.
The liberal Media especially the NY Times tries to make abuse mostly a Catholic problem - which is false.
The perscution by the liberal media is much bigger than abuse. They want to discredit the morals of the Church for gay marriage, homosexual activities, pro-abortion, pro-divorce, against pornography etc.
By the way, some members of SNAP are legitimate, others are out to make a buck. Where were their parents and the police?

Posted by FM on Friday, Jul 23, 2010 12:02 PM (EDT):

I apologize if I made the wrong assumption, then.

I never claimed to know you, but the way you write suggested a good dose of anger, but of course from mere written words one cannot always tell thé feelings behind them.

If I am wrong and I misinterpreted your words then I sincerely apologize to you. Also, I am glad you are not a victim.

Posted by gloria1970 on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 7:12 PM (EDT):

FM, WOW, you are making all kinds of assumptions about my history; my spiritual life; my political views; my emotions. I never expressed anger. I never indicated that I had been abused. I never said that I wished someone who hurt me would be punished. I never express an opinion on the media; the legal system; or sexual abuse in general. I simply stated some numbers which I believe to be accurate. I offered some resources for those wanting more info on sexual abuse in the Catholic church. I explained that many victims have told their stories to a poster who asked why they did not. I expressed a view that ONE poster was minimizing the clergy abuse and didn’t demonstrate the level of caring which they said they feel. I thank you for your wishes for me, but I find them odd, given that they don’t have anything to do with me or my reality. You’re right, you’re not in my shoes. But you are making assumptions as if you know me.

Posted by FM on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 6:42 PM (EDT):

Dear Leonard

You wrote:
“FM you are really on the wrong frequency.”
Nice Pun :P AM stinks btw :P Especially Monday AM hours (ok enough bad jokes)
You said:
‘ Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000(in the USA):
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Sexual ~ 10% or 87,900 in (one year 2000) in the USA”
I am not sure if you were trying to make a critique on my numbers or not….
That is, more or less, what I said… in ~50 years there are cases against about 5000+ priests, for a total of 10-20,000 victims…. (ok 20K perhaps it’s too much…)
My ‘ numbers’ might not be precise as yours (I was not going for precision here but for the ‘ overall dimension’ ) but we are making the same point. While the Church is responsible (as regrettable as it is) for 11K victims in ~ 50 yrs (which is horrible mind you!) the media seems to ignore the almost 100K a year.
By the way in 2001 the numbers were even higher, and in 2006 the number of children abused sexually was about 96,0000 in the US… so it seems that the problem is growing and not slowing down. That is what is truly alarming!!!
Of course this does not justify at all those 11K victims that some priests and bishops caused. Priests and bishops involved need to make reparation and justice needs to be done, where still possible (as said some culprits are already dead).
Hopefully the huge media scandal against the Church will help to awake sensibility for this problem also outside the Catholic Church.
On the other hand the ‘ Polansky Case’ give very little and very bleak hope….

“You will never get a true perspective from the liberal media. ”
Unfortunately not. And what is more unfortunate is that most people do not even bother to check the real numbers as you did.
Even if the media DOES report these abuses at time (sometimes they do report these things, fortunately), it’s usually in much less scandalistic fashion as it was done against the Church.

@ Gloria
You said :
“Leonard, I suggest that you have no idea what my experience is; where I get all my information; what my political beliefs are; how I come to my conclusions. The perspective I have is based on all of the above and it is certainly as valid as your perspective.”
I am sorry if you are also a victim of sexual abuse from a priest or bishop. I can understand your anger as I have a few female friends and even a relative who were raped when they were minors.

They were not raped by priests, however. They were raped by ‘regular low-life’.
Who should I be angry then? About the people who stood there when it happened and did nothing to help them (my relative was raped in a public park in broad daylight… and a good friend of mine was raped at the beach during the evening… but there were still people around…)?
Then I should hate all people for being so uncaring and so drenched apathy when someone is in trouble.
Should I blame lawyers who defend these abusers and try to paint rape victims (minors or adults) as ‘bad people who were looking for it’? Or the judges that give mild sentences?
Should I blame the police for being so inept at preventing these crimes?
I felt much better when I stopped being angry and so did my friends who were hurt. After all anger only keeps the wounds open in my opinion.

Of course I cannot tell you what to do since I am not in your shoes…

Anyway I hope that you will find peace and justice. I hope that those who hurt you and those who helped them will be punished for their action.
Most of all I hope that you will find peace in your heart about what happened and that your spiritual wounds will be healed.

Leonard, I suggest that you have no idea what my experience is; where I get all my information; what my political beliefs are; how I come to my conclusions. The perspective I have is based on all of the above and it is certainly as valid as your perspective.

Posted by Leonard on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 2:14 PM (EDT):

My apologies Gloria, I meant to direct my comments to FM. FM you are really on the wrong frequency. Maybe you would get better reception on AM.

Posted by Leonard on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 2:08 PM (EDT):

Gloria,

Here are some “facts” that I the liberal news media ignores about sexual abuse of minors in the USA:

Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000(in the USA):
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Sexual ~ 10% or 87,900 in (one year 2000) in the USA
Source: US Dept of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children & Families,
Child Welfare Information Gateway (formerly Nat’l Clearinghouse on Child Abuse & Neglect), 2000.

Contrast this with the 11K allegations against priests over 52 years in the John Jay Study. 52 times 88K = over 4 million cases in the USA. Why don’t you ever hear about it. This only represents 10% of all types of child abuse cases overall in the USA. You will only hear about how terrible those Catholic Priests are. About 150 priests were responsible for about 30% of the allegations and most of them were convicted. I suggest that you have no perspective on this issue that is based in the facts. You will never get a true perspective from the liberal media.

Posted by gloria1970 on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 1:46 PM (EDT):

It took me too long, but I now realize you are joking, Mia.

Posted by FM on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 11:58 AM (EDT):

“To the person who said that 5000 children have been abused by priests in the past 50 years, you are utterly incorrect. “

Not 5000 children but (about) 5000 CASES. The number of the victims is of course higher.

*No one* is trying to minimize the problem. We must however remember that if, as you say, the numbers of victims are in the 10 or 20 thousand for the Church… for 50 years…. the number of victims EACH year are 100.000 (in the US alone)!

The scandal is that the majority of sexual abuses are blatantly ignored by the media.

Also we must remember that also for sexual abuse in Schools, Boy scouts and even families not all victims have reported the crime… so the 90.000+ number of victims a year is ALSO a value that is lower than the actual number of sexual abuses in secular institutions and families.

I agree that it is important to bring the guilty to justice… but not just because they are priests.

—

” SNAP, www.BishopAccountability.org,”

These site are interesting, but they are also somewhat anti-catholic and the numbers and stories they sometime report are questionable. Although they do dive an idea of the problem.

It has happened more than once that some ‘victims’ made accuses that were afterwards proven false. Some just want to get some money out of a court settlement.

Which is a shame since it offends real victims who really suffered.

—

“Why are you so afraid of the facts and the information?? “

The question is how trustworthy or untrustworthy is the information?!

The New York Times and Der Spiegel also ‘brought information’ that was later on proven false or manipulated.

Posted by Michael on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 2:31 AM (EDT):

I agree that neither homosexuality nor celibacy causes pediphilia. However for male homosexuals there is a big slice of ephebophilia (teens) primarily because without the natural reticence of girls-women to sex there is much less of a barrier. Teen boys leaning homosexual can be “picked off” easily by homosexual men they feel affinity for.

Our society has a lot of counter-currents on what we call things. Some groups will call sex between an adult and a 17 year old “pediphilia” when it suits them, but will not say that when it does not suit them.

Posted by Michael on Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 1:44 AM (EDT):

Yes, a small percentage of priests and a few bishops have been pediphiles or ephebophiles. There have always been some and but we had something of a surge of this between 1960-1980 and some bishops covered up cases, sent priests to shrinks where they were released often without change, and some were reassigned. Some were removed from ministry and laicized but many were not.

We all agree to this as something that happened. Why do we have to go over this again, and again, and again, and again.

There is absolutely nothing new in the posting here. Absolutely nothing.

Posted by Mia Archer on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 11:52 PM (EDT):

OH..RUBBISH, Gloria. You shouldx know better..! Clearly you are not sophisticated enough to be able to see what’s going on. You will never get an IRISH cradle Catholic like me to believe the junk you peddle..

Posted by gloria1970 on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 11:40 PM (EDT):

Mia, You clearly have not been following the news for the past several years. There are MANY available stories including dates, names, places, etc., which you can read if you really wanted to know the truth. Again I refer to the websites mentioned previously. You can view actual church and legal documents which describe the abuses. There are also documentaries which tell victims stories. Many victims have come forward publicly with details of their abuse. It is because of them that the truth finally came out about the abuse by priests and the cover-up by the hierarchy. (I also know many priests, and I know several who are currently in jail for the rape of children.) Why are you so afraid of the facts and the information??

Posted by Mia Archer on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 11:22 PM (EDT):

To all of youy who have an axe to grind. Why don’t you go public with your stories..? Names, Dates, Places..that you know of vile occurrences..Why ? I wouldx think it would help these poor children that you are talking about..no..? OR could it be..that you lack the knowledge you say that you can impart..go ahead..you do a disservice to the community, the church, everyone by keeping details secret..OR could it be that you um..sorta..lack the “details” that you so valiantly profess to have..?

Posted by Mia Archer on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 11:11 PM (EDT):

Well..GOOD for you…But I happen to personally know a myriad of priests and bishops..very well..To bad that all you can do is squawk…Your stories are very undignified. As for research..there is all kinds of it out there..try a new direction with yours..or you may want to spend spend some time at one of our excellent Catholic Universities..where you can learn to not debase and belittle excellent men who sacrifice their lives for very little..

Posted by gloria1970 on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 10:53 PM (EDT):

Mia Archer, Such a mature and dignified comment. If you actually care about the issue of sexual abuse in the catholic church, please do some research. Look up SNAP, www.BishopAccountability.org, just for starters. My figures are accurate.

Posted by Mia Archer on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 10:46 PM (EDT):

gloria1970..What planet did you say you live on..? Please don’t take it personally… I wonder…do you smoke it…or shoot it..?

Posted by gloria1970 on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 10:09 PM (EDT):

To the person who said that 5000 children have been abused by priests in the past 50 years, you are utterly incorrect. The number is known to be in the tens of thousands, at least, in the US. And tens of thousands more around the world. SNAP (the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) has 9000+ members currently. Many clergy abuse victims have died and many have not yet come forward. Many will never come forward. And there are been very few false accusations against priests. Stop minimizing the issue/crime of priests abusing kids and bishops covering up.

Posted by FM on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 9:51 PM (EDT):

“Mark doesn’t deny that abuse of children continues to be a problem within the Catholic Church, nor that this problem is not a serious one, nor that people should be outraged at this betrayal by their own clergy.”

I agree. We have to weed out the bad elements.

There are certainly a few bad priests left and hopefully Bishops will be wiser now and deal with those horrible men swiftlky and justly and fully cooperating with the civi authorities.

Yet we must be careful not to create the false idea that all priests are pedophiles, as the secular media tries to do.

We must act justly and put to justice the guilty, while preserving the honor of the innocent.

Posted by Truth_Hurts on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 9:46 PM (EDT):

@Cameron Scott

Tipicall comments… and quite hypocrite.
You seem like all those who Mark accuses: they want perhaps to convict a priest for what he did maybe 40 years ago… but it’s OK to ‘free Polansky’ for doing the same 30 yrs ago… Very honest Cameron!

——-

“I’ll address your statements shortly though, because they are total rubbish.”

Are you sure you are not referring to the statements YOU made? It must be :P

————

“I don’t even pretend to know much about the subject. That’s right. I have had no interest in actively attacking the church or thoroughly pursuing the details of the story.”

Strangely enough you prove that this statement is a lie in the rest of the comment.

——-

“It’s a big story though, and in terms of facts I’m vaguely aware of: substantiated accusations number in the thousands in the USA and Europe; the Church has repeatedly, at a variety of levels, failed to notify authorities.”

Wake up.
What about SCHOOLS??!

1 out of 4 minors have been, are and probably will be sexually abused in schools before the age of 18.
THESE NUMEBERS ARE HUGE!

Of the 5000 cases in the Church *in the past 50 years* there are 90000+ cases in the US *every year*, many of them in schools.

Yes 90,0000+. Yes every year. Yes also in schools.

NINTY THOUSAND AND MORE A YEAR! (Saying it out loud, in case you might not see it like the media seems to not see it)

What are the authorities doing? I think not enough if the problem is so grave. I think that they are JUST NOW waking up about pedophilia and sexual abuse in schools and other lay institution!

——

Even if then they arrest the perpetrators… THEN WHAT?

I have a good friend, she is 18 now, and she was raped at the age of 15 (yes rape, not just a hand on a knee)…just 3 years ago… what did the civil authorities do?

They gave the rapist 2 years in prison, but he got out in 6 months (yeah that is hard time!) because his lawyer argued the case that the guy had ‘psychological problems’.

Well how FINE the authorities are dealing with rape of a minor. This is not even the only case like these…. There are many, many cases like this where the perpetrators go to prison for little a while and then they get thrown out in the street ready to rape again.

Why protect rapists and child abusers… when the system almost protects them for us.

——-

“there are some 5,000 abusive priests in the US, to date only 150 have been successfully prosecuted - a reflection, in large part, says Wall, of a lack of cooperation from the church.”

This is a blatant lie or, at least, a distortion of the truth. You should really look for reliable sources.

It’s NOT TRUE that there are 5000 abusive priests actively around.
The ARE however 5000 cases against priests and bishops. Point is:

- Most cases are old cases (30-40 yrs old or more!)
- Many accused priests are already dead
- Most of them are retired
- Several cases were *proven to be false accusations* (yes priests can be innocent too my dear)

It is SCHANDALOUS that the media (and people like you perhaps), try to distort the numbers and the facts to forge a situation that is not there.

No one of course denies the sexual abuse and no one denies that… What happened is horrible, but that does not justify manipulating the truth to slander a group of people.

But I guess that 5000 cases in 50 years are much worse than 90,000+ cases a year… as long as the Church gets the stick right?

——

“No. That is disingenuous and obtuse. Law enforcement organizations are institutions. Investigative groups that seek to uncover and reduce sexual abuse are institutions. If you feel the Church is unfairly targeted because it’s a single entity and people latch on to single entities, you’re oblivious to the fact that ongoing investigations continue to find more cases. Putting your head in the sand does not help the situation, it makes it worse.”

I think your head is in the sand. Clearly you are quite impervious to facts.

First of all many organization are not being fully and viciously attacked and slandered * *constantly* for their huge failure to deal with sexual abuse in the past.

Schools are still doing an horrible job in US.

I guess it’s ‘OK’ if schools solve their problem in their own time. As long as they are not Catholic schools, of course!

It is GOOD that the Church gets ‘cleaned’ from their bad elements… I hope tha public schools and other institutions will too in the future, when they are not so busy pointing the finger at the single entity.

Perhaps THEN pedophilia and minor abuse will be seriously tackled.

——

“I read that article, and the associated report. Really, really poor example for comparison. First, the article takes the wrong number - 9.6 instead of 6.7 for contact abuse - and even then the contact abuse includes a huge range of actions such as touching a shoulder or clothing in a way the student interprets as sexual. Besides cherry-picking statistics in a way that makes the information completely irrelevant, your example is a questionnaire based study. My numbers are for substantiated complaints and convictions of pedophiles. So your apples are more apple like than my oranges, well done.”

This is REALLY stretching the facts. I thin the cherry picker is you, who tries to ignore all abuse, obviously, but is all so eager to attack the Church.

——-

1) There are a lot of people upset about Child Abuse.

True, and that is natural

2) A lot of the same people are upset about Church related child abuse because it’s _child_abuse_.

Why are they not angry at schools, boy-scouts and other organizations then, if the problem is even worse there?
Obviously they are upset because they are told to be upset about the Church by the Media.

The Media that PROTECTS pedophiles in schools by ignoring the problem there and allowing it to fester and grow even more.

3) A lot of the same people are upset about both church hypocrisy and defensive arguments such as yours because it is sickeningly offensive and insane.

Who is an hypocrite here? The defense of the Church does not mean the defense of the pedophile priests. I think you should wash your eyes and read more carefully what Mark Shea read, since he is not defending at all the pedophile priests, nor those who covered it up.

Most Catholics and also most priests are also appalled at pedophilia and child abuse. Of course if a person sees only to attack the Church he will be blind to the truth.

——-

“In particular an institution is held responsible when it covers up a crime, fails to report a crime, facilitates a crime, is negligent or does not reasonably see to the safety of employees or public (including crimes perpetrated by staff, or others on property, etc), etcetera.”

The Church is not a corporation.

Also… I am quite sure, as it is a fact, that secular corporations and institutions have quite nice lawyers and are quite skilled to shift the blame all on one side, resulting the ‘firing of the few scapegoats’.
You are quite naïve if you think otherwise.

If, just to make a theoretical case, MCDonald poisoned kids with ill-prepared happy meals you think the big wigs would get any repercussions?
Doubt it. Perhaps a few CEO will get fired or perhaps even put in prison for a year or two and Mc.Donalds would have to pay reparations… which would still will be not enough to make a big dent in their profits anyway.——-

@ Jon W

“Everyone on this message board should stop cherry-picking people to criticize and then go back to their own parishes and dioceses and schools and districts and make sure there’s no abuse going on there.”

I FULLY agree.

If we know or think someone (no matter if he or she is a teacher, priests, postal worker or other profession) is abusing minors, then we should absolutely report it to the authorities.

Hopefully the authorities will also do something serious.

——-

Posted by Robert of Seattle on Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 1:18 AM (EDT):

I’ll agree with Cameron Scott on exactly one point: the Catholic Church is not the only institution that has sought to purge the pedophiles from its own ranks. There’s also the Boy Scouts (who also are occasionally under attack for failure to worship the pelvic pleasures).

Apart from that, I just don’t see any of his critiques striking home. Mark doesn’t deny that abuse of children continues to be a problem within the Catholic Church, nor that this problem is not a serious one, nor that people should be outraged at this betrayal by their own clergy.

All he is saying is that much of the media attention surrounding this problem ignores the victims who are different from the victims of priests only in that they are victims of people other than Roman Catholic priests. He simply points out that the animosity finds its target, not in the pedophilia, but in the Church. He notes as evidence that when similar charges are brought against the darlings of the media there are many who change their tune: they attack pedophile priests, but defend pedophile filmmakers.

In other words, condemn the priests and bishops (and religious and ecclesial employees) who have done wrong; but condemn them for their wrong, not for being Catholic. And condemn all who commit that wrong, because it is wrong to abuse a child; not because it is wrong to abuse a child while Catholic.

Posted by C. Torio on Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 10:01 PM (EDT):

The Left wants to inhibit the use of cigarettes and access to junk foods, but will never inhibit sex. They rabidly attack abstinence education, and create slogans for choice. But what about choice in non-moral issues? The world is upside down for them.

Posted by Thomas on Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 7:09 PM (EDT):

Excellent work! No doubt you’ll be attacked by those both within and without the Church who are either fighting against it or complicit with those who are; but who cares? You’re speaking truth, and those mired in the world will always object to it. That’s their problem.

Keep it up!

Posted by Tim J. on Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 2:15 PM (EDT):

The point of the article is that the MSM have a strong bias against the Church and are therefore much more eager to report abuse inside the Church than outside. This is manifestly true.

Posted by Leonard on Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 1:11 PM (EDT):

I agree Jon W but Cameron Scott does not deserve any credibility either. If you read his own sources they do not provide any evidence of his wild accusation that there are 5,000 unprosecuted pedophile priests in the USA. Mr Cameron Scott’s rant is totally biased and unfounded. Check out http://bit.ly/cyt3VB. All it proves is that the Church has been against pedopheila from the beginning. In fact it was the Church that raise mankind from the Pagan practice of Boy Abuse by Older Men which was widely practiced in the ancient world and accepted. Scott you apparently have some work to do in reading comprehension.

Posted by Jon W on Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 9:55 AM (EDT):

You have got to be kidding. Mark _may_ have a point, but people like Cameron Scott are not to be dismissed that way. It makes us sound like idiots…. Or maybe you were being sarcastic?
This whole conversation is awful and almost useless. Everyone on this message board should stop cherry-picking people to criticize and then go back to their own parishes and dioceses and schools and districts and make sure there’s no abuse going on there. This kind of tu quoque is unworthy of civilized people.

Hi Cameron Scott..Who made YOU president..? OR King..? OR Chief Dictator..?
Why don’t you just get off of your toadstool..or footstool and go to work..? Ant the corner restaurant..washing dishes..?
Get a life..!

Posted by Cameron Scott on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 11:16 PM (EDT):

Hi Mark Shea. I read your response, and the associated articles, and the report. If you did yourself, that severely compromises your ability to disseminate facts - but it also has nothing to do with your original argument… I’ll address your statements shortly though, because they are total rubbish.
MS: “The facts and evidence are this”
The facts and the evidence have no bearing on your original opinion piece. You made broadly invalid assertions about peoples opinions, and you did so to lob your own assertions that complaints about church related child-abuse are thus thinly-veiled or invalid. That is absurd.
I don’t even pretend to know much about the subject. That’s right. I have had no interest in actively attacking the church or thoroughly pursuing the details of the story. It’s a big story though, and in terms of facts I’m vaguely aware of: substantiated accusations number in the thousands in the USA and Europe; the Church has repeatedly, at a variety of levels, failed to notify authorities.
_But_that_doesn’t_matter_ for your argument. It could be two cases or two million. You reduced one separate argument of Church hypocrisy while still concluding moral authority, and in broad strokes you effectively libelled people upset about the scandal in an effort to appeal to some sense of misplaced judgement - citing a lack of actual concern for child safety as a core part of your argument! That still stops me speechless.
MS: “There were six credible cases … in 2009”
I read that. I don’t even need to dispute it. It’s an obviously carefully selected figure to diminish the issue. How about “there are some 5,000 abusive priests in the US, to date only 150 have been successfully prosecuted - a reflection, in large part, says Wall, of a lack of cooperation from the church.” http://bit.ly/cyt3VB
MS: “safer in a Catholic parish by orders of magnitude”
I read that article, and the associated report. Really, really poor example for comparison. First, the article takes the wrong number - 9.6 instead of 6.7 for contact abuse - and even then the contact abuse includes a huge range of actions such as touching a shoulder or clothing in a way the student interprets as sexual. Besides cherry-picking statistics in a way that makes the information completely irrelevant, your example is a questionnaire based study. My numbers are for substantiated complaints and convictions of pedophiles. So your apples are more apple like than my oranges, well done.
MS: “Sexual abuse is a worldwide problem.”
Yes it is.
MS: “The sole institution that has take steps to deal with it as an institution is the Catholic Church.”
No. That is disingenuous and obtuse. Law enforcement organisations are institutions. Investigative groups that seek to uncover and reduce sexual abuse are institutions. If you feel the Church is unfairly targeted because it’s a single entity and people latch on to single entities, you’re oblivious to the fact that ongoing investigations continue to find more cases. Putting your head in the sand does not help the situation, it makes it worse.
MS: “you will not reserve your anger about sexual abuse only for those who are conveniently Catholic.”
Seriously. Again you imply this is happening in the first place? I’m not part of NAMBLA thanks. And if you check NAMBLAs membership numbers against the population of the planet (or just those upset by Church related child abuse), you’ll come up short.
1) There are a lot of people upset about Child Abuse.
2) A lot of the same people are upset about Church related child abuse because it’s _child_abuse_.
3) A lot of the same people are upset about both church hypocrisy and defensive arguments such as yours because it is sickeningly offensive and insane.
I suddenly care a lot more about this issue because I find the attitude you have expressed socially repugnant, and I care about our society. However, it looks like trying to have a conversation on these boards is like arguing with a dining room table. The statements made by yourself and many of your readers are not grounded in reality, just whatever makes you feel good and allows you to smile and shrug.—
As a further and final note, the individual J who says McDonalds employees are not incriminating McDonalds. You misunderstand the law and institutions. McDonalds is held responsible for the misadventures of it’s employees on a regular basis with fines and law suits (look this one up yourself). In particular an institution is held responsible when it covers up a crime, fails to report a crime, facilitates a crime, is negligent or does not reasonably see to the safety of employees or public (including crimes perpetrated by staff, or others on property, etc), etcetera.

Catholic Church is on the side of science in as much as we have always opposed the occult. But many people confuse our belief in the efficacy of prayer with “magic.”

Posted by Billy Bean on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 7:31 PM (EDT):

Yes, Don. The New York Times is undeniably a bastion of traditional moral values and guardian of the truly despised and disenfranchised in our culture. Just keep telling yourself, “It’s all for the children…!”

Posted by alex on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 7:27 PM (EDT):

Thank you! The only reasonable comment I read these last six months.

By the way, the first female “Bishop” of the Lutherans resigned, because she was acused to have coverede up- or at least did not react properly, when confronted with such accusations against a pastor of her northern German congregation.Personally I think the protestants do apply strange criteria: when this “bishop” doubted the yirginity of Mary- nobody complained. According to what I’ve read, everything brought up against her was rather doubtful, but as a righteous Protestant she could not allow her credulity into question.
That now’s bad news for the real bishops, as one of them has been hunted down by the press already.

Posted by dancingcrane on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 6:42 PM (EDT):

Mark Shea is right. He is not scoring on those who hate child molestation wherever they find it, but only those who selectively attack an institution that they hate for other reasons. Pedophilia was not a media cash cow until it was found in the Catholic Church, and it’s still a non-issue in venues where the problem is worse. No surprise there. Liberals will protect liberal institutions, and only turn their weapons on their enemies. I’ve noticed an “excuse my sin and I’ll excuse yours” attitude in liberal circles. If the Catholic Church changed all its rules to allow abortion and all the rest of the liberal garbage, the priest pedophile issue would become a non-issue—and be gone from the media the next day.

Posted by Dennis Westmeier on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 6:40 PM (EDT):

SOUR GRAPES!! What we have already had is enough of the justification and and use of comparison to minimize the true scope and impact of the outrage. The truth is as it is. Accept it and get over it!

Posted by J on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 6:30 PM (EDT):

Dear Don,

you are willfully failing to make simple logical connections where they should be made, and making them where they shouldn’t.

You set up Roman Polanski as parallel to “The roman Catholic Church” (whatever that is) in the beginning, and then you say that “the church” (I assume this is supposed to be the same member of comparison as “The roman Catholic Church”, above) should be held more accountable than anyone (a fortiori, Roman Polanski).

and that “the church” is not what needs to be held accountable in a way similar to Roman Polanski, but rather persons who have perpetrated crimes?

and that individuals who perpetrate crimes while wearing a McDonald’s uniform are not incriminating McDonald’s?

You see, the institution that “tell[s] the world how to live it’s [sic] life” is not what is sexually abusing people here. In fact, inasmuch as it tells the world how to live its life, the Roman Catholic Church tells the world (this, “the world” fellow is a friend of yours?) not to abuse children.

Posted by Don on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 6:00 PM (EDT):

Mark - you miss the point totally. Roman Polanski doesn’t hold himself up as the moral authority of the world and tell the world how to live it’s life. The roman Catholic Church does. the church should be held more accountable than anyone. And to the NY Times I say great job and keep up the fantastic work!

Posted by Leonard on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 4:46 PM (EDT):

Excellent analysis and description of how the lunatic “lefties” scatterbrain the issues to protect “their own” and simultaneuosly attack the Truth for their master who of abhors all Truth!

Posted by Colin Gormley on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 4:29 PM (EDT):

“Mark Shea should take some pointers from Maureen Dowd “

Maureen Down is an airhead. I can’t think of a doctrine of the Catholic Church she hasn’t attacked, yet she considers herself a Catholic. The only people whose perception is more screwed up are those who look to her for orientation.

Posted by Nick on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 1:59 PM (EDT):

“I think that’s giving rather too much credit and power to a nutty German fringe group”

I don’t think so. Satan tends to use evil movements to harm the Church. For example, he used the Masons to attack the Church in the 19th Century. As Our Lady of Good Success prophecised: “These years, during which the evil sect of Masonry will take control of the civil government will see a cruel persecution of all religious communities, and they will also strike out violently against this one of mine.”

The media spent most of Lent doing everything it could to find something to pin on Benedict while ignoring this fact. Why? Because it has no real interest in The Children (who are safer in a Catholic parish by orders of magnitude than they are in a public school).

Sexual abuse is a worldwide problem. The sole institution that has take steps to deal with it as an institution is the Catholic Church. If you are serious about children, you will not reserve your anger about sexual abuse only for those who are conveniently Catholic.

Posted by Cameron Scott on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 1:41 PM (EDT):

This is the first non-church Catholic opinion I have seen on this issue. _My_mind_is_blown_. I sat mouth-agape for a while, as this is a critically absurd apologist feel good piece. It’s built on straw-man logical fallacy, placing majority Church-opposition into some bizarre Polanski-forgiving, obscure 70s German policy supporting, pro-pedophilia fantasy party to coerce its conclusion. Who are these majority pro-pedo lefties? Normally I’d like to say “sorry, logical fallacy there” and move on, but I am especially dismayed at the conclusion made even then.
Even with that insane logical leap, what is the message? Does that emotionally mitigate the hypocrisy of the Church positioning itself as a beacon of moral superiority full of protectors and saviours only to suffer the revelation that it has hidden, defended and tolerated pedophiles in it’s midst? Really. Wow*.

In an attempt to be painfully clear on my point: yes Polanski had supporters, yes Whoopi said some things, and yes all the rest. All of that is considered controversial and disagreeable by many in both broadly defined left and right camps - but even if everyone else really was absurdly for these things and only raising criticism because they don’t like the Church? That doesn’t help you. If you were in a car-theft gang and one gang member ratted you out to the police for car-theft, but he only did it because he didn’t like you or some other motivation - you would still be stuck representing an institution that knowingly allowed the act of child-rape… er, car-theft. I posit that it is unhealthy to try to convince yourself or anyone, even indirectly, that this is something to feel good about.

Incidentally I did do a fifteen minute search to learn what the “lefties” at the NYT say about both issues. “polanski” articles have had over 10,000 updates in the last 30 days, and “priest” articles have over 10,000 updates in the last 7 days**. I read several articles and opinion pieces, and (unsurprisingly - it is taboo topic after all) the NYT (in the articles I read) seemed careful to not offer opinion and only report and assert facts. That’s anecdotal, however the third piece I found http://nyti.ms/cDWw6s, directly compares the case of one priest AND Polanski as reported by other news media - it offers context and analysis, but neither convictions or pardons for either party. This seems completely contrary to your assertions.

* Also the suggestion that people historically only just started to get up-in-arms about pedophilia when naughty-priest stories started appearing (and only because they hate the church!) is juicy enough nonsense to be on par with the rest of this piece.

** Yes, NYT has MUCH more article activity featuring “priest” that “polanski” in the last 7 days. One of those two is definitely a much larger story. One taps into an organisation of millions and a continually updated list of victims in the thousands, the other is one big celebrity, one victim, and international court politics. I supply the figures because I first wanted to assert whether they were covering both issues, and then at least take a stab at finding a Pro-Polanski piece. I didn’t find one. Maybe there is one. I don’t know.

Posted by christine on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 1:04 PM (EDT):

I agree with Fr. Hoatson. Mark Shea has completely missed the point. He has ignored facts and evidence, and has attributed opinions to people who do not hold those opinions. This article is just another lame attempt to incorrectly portray the Catholic church and its leaders as victims.

Posted by Lionel on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 12:50 PM (EDT):

You do know how to sling the BS around

Posted by Father Robert Hoatson on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 11:02 AM (EDT):

Mark Shea should take some pointers from Maureen Dowd who rightly analyzed the Church’s mess in yesterday’s NY Times. Groups have spoken out about Roman Polanski, loudly and clearly, and to use his case to distract from the evil that is perpetrated by Rome is to miss the point entirely.

Posted by Joe Giardina on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 10:55 AM (EDT):

I completely agree.

Posted by Rachel on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 10:46 AM (EDT):

Thank you for, once again, pointing out the obvious. I have always been so frustrated by those who bash the Catholic Church again and again but won’t speak out about the amazing amount of child pornography available with little punishment (it is not that the law officials don’t care - they aren’t given the adequate funds based on the amount) or human trafficking. Most people are very selective, and inconsistent, about what makes them ‘outraged’.

Posted by Michael on Monday, Jul 19, 2010 8:52 AM (EDT):

I think Mark is really on to something.

It became clear to me some time ago that most the hype from various sources about “protecting children” was a bunch of hooey.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.